Barandon vs. Ferrer

A lawyer who uses abusive and offensive language in pleadings to maliciously impute falsification against opposing counsel, and who utters drunken threats and invectives against a fellow lawyer in a public courtroom, violates Canons 7 and 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and warrants suspension from the practice of law.

Atty. Bonifacio T. Barandon, Jr. and Atty. Edwin Z. Ferrer, Sr. served as opposing counsel in Civil Case 7040. Atty. Ferrer filed a reply with opposition to a motion to dismiss, accusing Atty. Barandon of falsifying the plaintiff's affidavit. Weeks later, prior to a hearing at the Municipal Trial Court of Daet, Atty. Ferrer confronted Atty. Barandon, uttering threats and insults while allegedly intoxicated.

• The Pleading Incident: In Civil Case 7040, respondent filed a reply with opposition to a motion to dismiss, containing capitalized, accusatory language. He imputed "FALSIFICATION" of the plaintiff's affidavit to petitioner, demanding "DISBARMENT," despite lacking evidence that the document was falsified or that petitioner authored it.
• The Courtroom Incident: On December 19, 2000, before a hearing at the MTC Daet, respondent, evidently drunk, threatened petitioner, stating, "Laban kung laban, patayan kung patayan, kasama ang lahat ng pamilya. Wala na palang magaling na abogado sa Camarines Norte, ang abogado na rito ay mga taga-Camarines Sur, umuwi na kayo sa Camarines Sur, hindi kayo taga-rito." Several disinterested persons confirmed the incident.
• Other Allegations and Defenses: Petitioner also alleged that respondent filed a fabricated falsification charge, requested petitioner to falsify a daily time record, and engaged in misconduct following a vehicular accident. Respondent countered that the falsification charge originated from his client, denied being drunk or issuing threats, presented a police certification that the blotter did not record the threat, and claimed petitioner was forum shopping due to pending criminal cases for libel and grave threats.

• Abusive Language in Pleadings: Petitioner argued that respondent used abusive, offensive, and improper language in his reply, maliciously insinuating falsification without evidentiary basis.
• Scandalous Conduct: Petitioner maintained that respondent's drunken threats and invectives in the courtroom discredited the legal profession and violated Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• Baseless Falsification Charge: Petitioner asserted that the falsification charge was fabricated, as the document was notarized and petitioner was neither a signatory nor a lawyer at the time of its execution.

• Origin of Falsification Charge: Respondent argued that the falsification charge originated from his client, who vouched that her thumbmark was falsified.
• Improbability of Courtroom Incident: Respondent contended that it was improbable he made threats while court was in session without being cited for contempt.
• Forum Shopping: Respondent claimed petitioner was forum shopping because the disbarment case involved the same acts subject of pending criminal cases for libel and grave threats.
• Denial of Misconduct: Respondent denied being drunk or engaging in scandalous behavior, presenting a police certification that the blotter did not record the threat.

• Administricial Liability: Whether the IBP Board of Governors and Investigating Commissioner erred in finding respondent guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• Propriety of Penalty: Whether the penalty of one-year suspension from the practice of law is justified.

• Administricial Liability: The finding of administrative liability was affirmed. Respondent violated Rule 8.01 of Canon 8 by using abusive, offensive, and improper language in his pleading to maliciously impute falsification to opposing counsel without evidence. He likewise violated Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 by engaging in scandalous conduct—uttering drunken threats and invectives in a public courtroom—which adversely reflected on his fitness to practice law. Intemperate language and unkind ascriptions have no place in judicial forums.
• Propriety of Penalty: The one-year suspension was upheld. Respondent's display of improper attitude, arrogance, and misconduct transgressed the ethics lawyers are sworn to uphold. Due process was observed, the IBP having afforded respondent ample opportunity to file pleadings and refute the allegations.

• Code of Professional Responsibility — Canon 8, Rule 8.01 — A lawyer shall not, in professional dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive, or otherwise improper. Applied to respondent's use of capitalized, accusatory language in a pleading imputing falsification to opposing counsel without evidentiary basis.
• Code of Professional Responsibility — Canon 7, Rule 7.03 — A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on fitness to practice law, nor behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession. Applied to respondent's drunken threats and invectives against a fellow lawyer in a public courtroom.
• Due Process in Administrative Cases — The essence of due process is the reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit evidence in support of one's defense. Satisfied where the IBP Investigating Commissioner afforded the respondent ample opportunity to file pleadings and refute allegations.

• "Though a lawyer’s language may be forceful and emphatic, it should always be dignified and respectful, befitting the dignity of the legal profession. The use of intemperate language and unkind ascriptions has no place in the dignity of judicial forum."
• "The practice of law is a privilege given to lawyers who meet the high standards of legal proficiency and morality. Any violation of these standards exposes the lawyer to administrative liability."

• Garcia v. Bala, A.C. No. 5039, November 25, 2005 — Cited as controlling precedent for the proposition that the practice of law is a privilege conditioned on maintaining high standards of proficiency and morality.
• Saberon v. Larong, A.C. No. 6567, April 16, 2008 — Followed to remind lawyers that dignified language must be used in pleadings despite the adversarial nature of the legal system.
• De la Rosa v. Court of Appeals Justices, 454 Phil. 718 (2003) — Followed for the rule that intemperate language and unkind ascriptions have no place in judicial forums.
• Batongbakal v. Zafra, 489 Phil. 367 (2005) and Calma v. Court of Appeals, 362 Phil. 297 (1999) — Followed for the definition of due process as a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
• Atty. Reyes v. Atty. Chiong, Jr., 453 Phil. 99 (2003) — Followed for the mandate that lawyers must maintain the dignity of the legal profession and conduct themselves honorably.

• Canon 7, Rule 7.03, Code of Professional Responsibility — Prohibits lawyers from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on fitness to practice law or behaving in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the profession. Applied to respondent's courtroom outburst and drunken threats.
• Canon 8, Rule 8.01, Code of Professional Responsibility — Prohibits lawyers from using abusive, offensive, or improper language in professional dealings. Applied to respondent's pleading imputing falsification to opposing counsel.

Antonio T. Carpio, Arturo D. Brion, Mariano C. del Castillo, Jose Portugal Perez